Leadership

The Birthrights of Citizenship
An Open letter to the people of the 53 District CA

Mason Weaver for Congress CA-53

September 28, 2009

We are part of a unique experience in human communities. The social behavior of early mankind was simple – the strong overcame the weak. It was acceptable and understandable to all. The struggle for personal freedoms was never considered; the struggle was always for the survival of the group. The privileged group may have issues with or disdain for the weaker group but they always expected dominance. Every once in a while the weaker group would rise up and challenge the stronger group. The tides shifted back and forth with one group always assuming the dominant role – this was what people called society.

Human history takes a turn, however, with the American experiment, where society was not based upon the group but the individual. One’s potential was not based upon inheritance or privilege but honor, hard work, and innovation. Ours was a new concept, the individual right of self-governing. It was a system based upon an understanding of the spirit of mankind – freedom! As Americans we are free to come together and determine our leadership, not dictatorship. We are free to determine what is best for our culture. We are free to work and provide for our families as we see the benefits. We are free!

The United States Constitution is based upon the idea that individuals were created. Thus, we are free, not because government says we are but because our Creator has deemed us free. Because we are free, our Constitution recognizes the rights of the individual as opposed to the privilege of the group. Our form of government is designed to accommodate personal freedom and is therefore incapable of taking care of every single need of every one of its citizens. The only way that government could take care if you would be to control you altogether. If you are free, you are by definition uncontrollable; therefore your government must take your freedom from you in order to provide personal safety to you.

Today, people seem to think that very problem facing the American people must have a government solution. However, if the government was created to protect our freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, how then could the government be expected to provide those things when we are lacking? If the government insisted that it provide what you are free to obtain for yourself, wouldn’t that be a problem? So then if the government is the problem, it cannot be the solution. Nowadays every crisis requires more government intervention and less freedom to the governed. If we are indeed a self-governed population then We the People are free to make our own decisions, so only we can solve the majority of our problems. The government was never empowered to make sure that we all liked each other, never offended anyone, or thought the same way about every thing. It is unconstitutional to assume control or influence over our banking, education, health, or wealth. It is counterproductive in a free, self-governing nation to have government regulations controlling every decision citizens make.

Our government was ordained and established by free, self-governing people to secure order and provide general protection while we provide for our families. Our history is that of the people putting pressure on government to change, not the government putting pressure on the people to change. We, the people put pressure on England and it resulted in the Revolutionary War. We, the people put pressure on the South and it resulted in the Civil War. It was the population putting pressure on government in the Woman’s Suffrage Movement, Civil Rights struggles, and the Anti-War Movement that brought about change. It is the American Way; it is the way of self-governed people.

Where is the pressure on the government to perform an overhaul of the healthcare system? Where is the cry from the population of self-governed people demanding our government step in and fix our healthcare? The pressure is coming once again from the people to keep the government out of changing the healthcare system. The President did not campaign on healthcare reform, and there has been no national debate on the issue. This issue was brought to the American people by our government and the government is insisting we accept it regardless of our clear opposition! This is not only unconstitutional; it is a direct threat to freedom as we know it.

With provisions allowing jail time for noncompliance, higher taxes, lower service, and limited access to doctors, the American people are once again required to stand up to its government as only a self-governed people can.

We have said “NO!” We have said it over and over again. We have said it in Tea Parties, town hall meetings, and marches in our hometowns, state capitals, and even Washington D.C. We have said “NO!” over and over again, but our government has responded with a closed, arrogant ear. They have even said publicly that we are like teenage children, a mob, and everything except CITIZENS! It is time to see what kind of government we have and what kind of people are being governed.

If we are self-governed and free, we must say “NO!” one more time. On 11-2-10 we may have our last chance to say “NO!” On 11-2-10 we must declare our freedom once again. We must reestablish the old idea that we are Americans; free and self-governed. Who will stand up for America and tell them we mean NO? Who will tell them they work for us? Who will declare that if we do not want to read 1100 pages, that means NO. If we do not understand the bill, that means NO! If we are afraid or confused, that still means NO! Who will tell them that no matter what name they call us, no matter if we are a mob or not, or even “Astro Turf”, we have said “NO!”, and we mean NO.

President Obama is determined to close the Military prison at Guantanamo Cuba and bring the terrorist to America. He has assured us that no one would be released within America who poses a threat to citizens. It is wonderful to have the assurances of the president of the United States. But will those assurances really keep us safe?

How would the president know if they pose a threat to US Citizens? Will he ask them? By being in the United States they will have the constitutional protection of anyone in the judicial system. So if they present a good case, act a certain way, they could be released after a short period of time.

But that is not even half of the problem. Here is the real problem. We are going to bring harden Islamic radicals to our prisons. Prisons are the breeding ground for radical Islamic recruitment. It has always been the breeding ground for their activities. So we are going to bring the most dangerous radicals to our American prison system to radicalize prisoners to send them back out to the Nation.

Recently four young muslim men were arrested in New York preparing to bomb Jewish worship sites and to shoot down a military plane with a stinger missile. Three of the four converted to Islam while in Jail. Richard Reid (the Shoe Bomber) was radicalized while in prison in the United Kingdom. Jose Padilla who was arrested for planning a “dirty Bomb” became a radical Islamic while in prison. There are concerns of possible connections between prison gangs and potential terrorist already within our jails.

The president does not understand that although, “No one has ever escaped from a Max Prison”, other inmates have been released with instruction and training. Even maximum Prisons have drugs problems, how do they get in? They are sent back and forth by prisoners and employees.

The conversion to radical Islam is not new. Malcolm X became a radical black Muslim while in prison. As a matter of fact, the Black Muslim movement came out of prison with Elijah Muhammad. The arguments about “not in my back yard” is weak. That is not the reason we should confront and contest this move. Bringing Islamic radical teaching and recruitment to our jails and allowing the students to go spread their message here cannot be good for anyone. Why not keep Guantanamo open? It is doing a great job, it keep the prisoners under the military and keeps them from recruiting within America.

The economical crisis: is it really a crisis? What caused it? How can we extract ourselves from it? Let us be a little calm, cool, and collective about the multi-billion dollar questions. It seems like every little blip or incident sends the economy into a tail spin. How could a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico cause long lines at the pump all over the South? How can less than 5% of the home mortgages going into foreclosure cause a financial collapse of world markets? They cannot. Not by themselves anyway.

One of the problems is that the world hates America but loves to trade with us. We are the only country that can innovate, develop, and inspire progress. Our economy is over 13.8 trillion dollars, making it the largest in the world by far. America’s economy is larger than those of the next four largest economies (Japan, Germany, China and United Kingdom) combined. Sure, they are growing, but the world is far behind us.

With all of their oil revenue, Saudi Arabia has only the 24th largest economy in the world, and Venezuela comes in 34th, at $228 billion per year. That is still a lot of surplus for these nations, and they certainly do not want to invest it within their own corrupt countries. Mexico receives $20 billion per year from illegals sending cash back to relatives. Yet when they go home to Mexico, they only have poverty to deal with.

Nevertheless, because we are an open society, most foreign nations and individuals can trade with and invest in America. So, wealthy business owners and foreign banks are heavily invested in our economy. We buy their oil, toys, cars, and clothing, and they take our money to buy crops, military hardware, and invest in our markets. It is the latter that is causing so many sleepless nights.

As India and China demanded more oil for their expanding economies and America refused to produced more domestically, investors began to “speculate” that prices would go up with the demand. So they invested heavily in the American market. At the same time, America’s lending institutions and banks, being encouraged by Congress, began to change their lending criteria and sold risky loans to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac companies who lobbied Congress for more risky loans. The more money they gave to Congress, the more support Congress gave them to make risky loans.

During this time something strange began happening in the western states. Many foreigners using fake ids (often from their own Consulates) began to buy homes with weak, unsupported loans. It was a boom business for all. As the dollar weakened, more overseas investments came into the market, creating more capital for the banks to lend. The explosive mixture was ready – all that was needed was the right spark.

First came the crack down on illegal immigration and the well publicized raids on businesses. Communities began to report the exodus of illegals back to their own countries and a decrease in the local work force. At the same time there emerged a noticeable increase in the foreclosure rate on homes. Those foreigners with fake identification had no reason to stick around; they were abandoning homes. It started in California and moved into Texas.

Gasoline hit around $4 a gallon in the U.S., and there was a revolt from citizens demanding more domestic production of oil. This had an immediate reduction in the price of oil and the speculators panicked. They moved their money out of oil, the price per barrel plummeted, and the foreign investors took their money out of the country. The dollar got stronger and banks started experiencing a “silent run” on bank accounts when large depositors began to take money out. The first cracks in the financial institution began to appear. Those “silent runs” were often foreign investors looking for better places for their money. Then the “panic” took hold and the U.S. Treasury asked Congress to inject 770 billion dollars of cash to be available to banks to lend out. Without the cash infusion banks could not lend and businesses could not pay monthly expenses.

Now that Congress has shown its willingness to support bad ideas and mistakes, State governments are standing in line for bailout money. The floodgates have been opened. The stock market will survive, but only after sanity returns.

In Denver, Colorado on July 2, 2008, a group of about 100 Christian Conservative leaders gathered to discuss the current political atmosphere. I attended this conference and sat on one of its panels to discuss political, social, and economic issues. The next day the press began its coverage and got most of the facts correct.

What was not reported was the heated, honest discussion over the current direction of this country and what to do about it. You cannot get 100 unaffiliated leaders together without conflict, emotions, and venting. Many attendees have large followings and influences worldwide. Some could call on political policy makers to push their own agenda and opinions. What the press did not report on was that after the long hours of speeches, nominations, discussions, and even disagreements, the conclusion was met with camaraderie and support.

I did not meet anyone there whose first choice for President was John McCain, but he was the choice of most who left that room. It was said that the process of Christian political leaders to choose their leaders should have started immediately after the 2000 election. It was clear that Dick Cheney would not be running in 2007, so we should have chosen our nominee and supported him early. We will not make that mistake again.

While no one group or individual championed the meeting, it was obviously called and attended by those who supported Mike Huckabee for President. After all, it was a Christian political meeting. Mike Huckabee was in the hotel the night before, but did not attend this meeting, and I did not see him in the hotel during the meeting. However, I did speak with him the night before, and he seemed relaxed about the idea of supporting the Republican ticket and had genuine, solid ideas on why John McCain was the only sane choice now. I think his presence there, speaking to so many of his followers and supporters, made the choices on the following day much easier. Supporting John McCain was no longer seen as the group turning their backs on their first choice, Mike Huckabee.

However, Mike Huckabee’s appearance at the hotel did raise some questions. Did Mike Huckabee approve the support of John McCain? Did Mike Huckabee ask for our support and pressure for the second position on the ticket? I know when the press learns of the appearance of Mike Huckabee at the hotel the day before this event, there will be speculation about his motives. So let me give you my personal, first hand views.

I suppose if any politician was in the same hotel for another reason but found a hundred of his most loyal and financial supporters, he would stop by and say hello to a few of them. That happened the evening before in a private suite. It was not a reception for Mike Huckabee, but he was certainly the star there. He did not give a speech, nor did he discuss the Vice-Presidential position in the suite. What he did talk about were his values, love for his country, and obedience to God. I stayed until he left and spoke to him several times, and I did not get the impression that he knew about the meeting that would follow the next day. However any reasonable person would assume he knew.

However, at the meeting, one of his supporters did come up with idea of sending a letter to John McCain to request Mike Huckabee be added to the ticket. That motion came at the end of the evening and seemed quiet arbitrary and a spur of the moment addition to the conversation. It was a second thought to a comment, and became a motion.

I know some will wonder if it was an attempt of the “Religious Right” to force Mike Huckabee’s name onto the ticket. It would have been a brilliant move, and I would have supported it; but, I do not think it happened that way. John McCain will get the support of the Christian political leaders, but Mike Huckabee will always have their hearts.

When I was a young boy growing up in Saint Louis Missouri, I was aware of many of the “first” by black people. I remember my adult relatives calling out in excitement of seeing a black person on “American Band Stand” or a game show. I can recall the details of the first black person going to college or getting a high profile job. Every black child growing up in the 1950s remember Congressman Adam Clayton Powell of New York.

Occasionally, I would catch myself daydreaming about being the first black person to achieve something important. And as every black person, I thought what it would be like to see a black man as president. I did not know much about politics as a child but I knew a lot about race. It seemed important to me that a black man achieve this level. It was important for my family and my race. It was important for everyone around me.

We thought a black President would change how black people thought about themselves and how white people thought about us. We thought black President would stop the police brutality housing discrimination and joblessness.

That was childish “symbolism” of the 1950s and I out grew it. In the 1960s I became a teenager and was living in a rural white community. I no longer look forward to seeing the first black do something, I had to become the first black to achieve many of the things I wanted out of life.

Growing up around those white children taught me a lot about white America. Some were nice some were mean, some were smarter than me and some were not. They were not magical, superior creatures, they were just kids like me. I played sports, some were better and some were not. I studied my lessons and I socialized. I learned that the greatest difference between us teenagers were our morals. Some looked at life as an opportunity to take from someone others looked at it as an opportunity to give. As I began to determined my own morals and started to associate with similar people, I found my views of my world begin to change.

It no longer mattered if we had a black President or not. The President did not represent my race. He really would not stop discrimination, I would have to. The white teenagers who had the same morals as I, banded together with others like ourselves and with the like minded adults, changed the world. It was not because we had a good President, it was because we were good people.

I learned that I had to represent me. I had to stop the discrimination. I had to open opportunities for myself and for my family. By not waiting for a leader to lead me, I began to take charge of my own future. Sure I found many people did not like my new style and self confidence, so what? Others wanted me to fail for their own reasons, so what? I had to achieve because it was up to me.

However, many people did not have that mind set. Many never developed that personal confidence in their own future. Some kept and grew the impression that their plight in life was the fault and responsibility of others. These are the people who supports Barrack Hussein Obama today, simply because he would be the first black President. Obama’s polices does not matter to them. He will lift the burdens off their lives, he will make the bullies of life leave them alone. Obama represents the great equalizer. This is the real hope he presents.

White voters and black voters who have been depending upon symbolic representation are idolizing Obama as the great equalizer. It does not matter what comes out about him or what he does, they will only support him more. I understand that mentality and no longer try to challenge it or persuade it. The only hope is for us to show up on election day and out vote them.

I have been watching the meteoric run of Barrack Hussein Obama for the past few months. It seems obvious that his strength is not in his stance on policy but in the collective American imagination. His victories have come from the imagination of people looking for others to improve their lives. This will make Barrack Hussein Obama harder to beat because, albeit imaginary, he is leading a movement.

Just as Ronald Reagan led a conservative movement, Barrack Hussein Obama is leading an emotional movement. Reagan lead a revolution based upon conservative principles, which were clearly outlined and defined. That movement was founded on the ideas of smaller government, lower taxes, and a strong national stance against communism. Barack Hussein Obama’s movement is based upon imagination and daydreaming about what “hope” means to the individual.

This will make him much harder to defeat because ‘hope’ springs eternal. He has tapped into the cry for help so many utter when they think of their own lives. Even though their personal views may not line up with reality, people vote based upon their perception, not based upon the facts. In order to better understand Barack Hussein Obama we should look at the persuasive power of emotional leaders of the past.

Leaders of great movements have the ability to identify with the problem, real or imagined, of those being led. Bill Clinton had, “I feel your pain” when he ran for President; Barack Hussein Obama offers ‘hope’ that the pain will go away. It does not matter if the pain is in the imagination of the masses – it only matters that they feel the pain.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright has recently made national news with his inflammatory comments, and in the process has introduced America to the phrase “Liberation Theology.” What is Liberation Theology? Is it a new Gospel? Is it comparable to any other theology? This phrase and the philosophy behind it are the remnants of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Its logical place would be the black church.

The Civil Rights Movement had to begin in the black church because that was where all past organization and motivation for oppressed black people came from. On the plantation, one of the few places for blacks to meet without being watched by white slave managers was Sunday morning church service. It was also where slaves could have leaders that they chose instead of those chosen by Master. The preacher was one of the few slaves who could approach Master on behalf of other slaves to address grievances.

Thus, the slave preacher was usually in the forefront of the Underground Railroad Movement. He coordinated with other Christians from the North based upon a common faith and a common theology. Christians like Harriett Beecher Stowe, John Brown, the Quaker church, and the Wesleyan Church worked with Christians like Harriett Tubman to publicly denounce slavery and help slaves escape. On the other hand, you also had the militant slave preachers like Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner who lead revolts and rebellions.

It was a Christian movement which eventually pushed this country to tear itself apart to end the institution of slavery. Then came discrimination as “Separate but equal”, and again, it was the Christian church that lead the way with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Christian Leadership Conference, and the thousands of black churches in black communities throughout America organizing, educating, and strategizing to confront this threat to liberty and dignity.

I was a young man in the 1960s, and while I serving in the Navy a white racist shipmate dropped 2,800 pounds of metal on me in an attempt to kill me. I became permanently disabled and continue to face physical struggles. I went through radical and angry responses and found a solution which worked for me and may work for the rest of America. It was racial forgiveness. Not racial “restoration” and not “liberation theology. It was an old theology called “Forgiveness.” As a Christian, what other resolution was there? What other response could I give?

I could have demanded an apology, special treatment, or punishment for the perpetrator. However, if I demanded anything from anyone, I would be dependent upon them. If I was going to be free, I would have to act like a free man. First, I had to totally forgive the hatred and attempted murder. I had to forgive whatever contributing factor I placed upon my country and white people. The real “Liberation Theology” was not new; it was very old – it was the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The “New Civil Rights Movement” has hijacked the Gospel and twisted it to suit themselves. They have taken the philosophy of forgiveness and turned it into a total acceptance of every lifestyle and belief system possible. They have developed a new philosophy called “Tolerance”, meaning to hold everyone’s beliefs to equal standing with your own beliefs. Not just acceptance of others’ right to hold different beliefs, this new philosophy of Tolerance requires you to view their beliefs as of equal value to yours. It requires a change in your beliefs to tolerate others. This requires you to have no beliefs.

So, Reverend Wright can be a Christian minister and accept beliefs of Farrakhan as equal to his Christian beliefs. He can accept abortions as equal to his Christian faith, and he can believe poverty is caused by government action not individual action.

Reverend Wright could build a great church because the masses love to be taken care of and his passion for their plight gives them hope. I found that real hope lies in the total forgiveness of my Christian faith, and it has truly liberated me from the anger, frustration, and hatred of the past. I went on with my life and have achieved some levels of success, especially in my Christian walk. So, I do not need a Black Liberation Theology. I no longer belong to the black race; I belong to the race of Christ.

I was blessed when Dr. D. James Kennedy produced a biography of my life for his television program, “The Coral Ridge Hour.” It highlights my struggle with the anger and how I found complete release. As this nation struggles with past and present wrongs, this message may help us all adjust. Instead of punishment, reparation, or guilt, let’s try forgiveness.

In the 1940s black men and white men (like Reverend Wright) went to war to fight for the freedom of others, and then came back to America to face discrimination at home. White and black people joined hands again for a new push for civil rights. They took down Poll Taxes, fought against illiteracy, and again, worked for the dignity of all men.

This was the era of Reverend Wright. He and I grew up in the middle of that America, and it formed our views of America. I also joined the military, I also faced open hostility from white America, and I also went on to a radical response to that hostility. However, I came to a profoundly different conclusion about my country and the proper response to these problems. The fight for freedom was just, but the response to being free has not always been justified.

Once World War II ended, the “war industry” disassembled and returned to the actions of community building. People went back to their lives and began to build families, culture, and careers. However, when the Civil Rights Era of the 1960s and 1970s was won, the Civil Rights “industry” did not disassemble, but redirected itself to other areas because there is a lot of money, influence, and power in addressing “problems.” So, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and the others could not maintain their status as advocates for the MOVEMENT unless the movement continued. You will never see them celebrate the achievements of America. You will never hear them praise the accomplishments of the individual. Furthermore, you cannot expect them to acknowledge the great progress America has made in racial equality. They are crisis managers, so they cannot get paid if there are no crises.

After the Civil War, 360,000 white men had been killed on the Union side. They died fighting their brothers and cousins to free strangers. That was the original “apology for slavery” everyone is crying for today. Those that remained alive returned home and started families while the former slaves dealt with the newness of freedom. Slaves did not blame America for slavery, and despite today’s call for “forty acres and a mule”, most blacks did not expect much from the government. The call for Civil Rights was a call for personal freedom and protection, not government control and management. I did not fight for the right to be managed by America; I fought for my God-given right to participate in the America dream.